saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,837
- 2,030
I thought I read that it's been a Republican-held seat for close to a century?
For the Dems, this is a wash - it was a "safe" GOP seat before, which is one reason Obama picked the previous occupant for an appointed post, since he assumed it wouldn't change hands.
And so it hasn't - and the Democrats have better than a 60% majority in the house, enough to pretty much ignore most of what the Republicans think or say, which suits me fine for now. I hope the win by Hoffman (assuming he does win - polls are going to be iffy with all the variables in this thing) encourages other parts of the GOP to self-immolate.
Most districts in the country don't have a strong Conservative Party presence, so when they pick far-right social conservatives in their primaries (encouraged by this race), they'll lose more than they would have otherwise.
If the Democrats can keep their losses to less than 25 seats in the House, and 5 seats in the Senate, I'll be content. They (Dems) will still have solid majorities in both houses, a majority of state Governorships, and the Presidency, through 2012 at least.
Time enough to undo some of the incredible damage done by Bush & Cheney to the country.
...
They tapped the previous Congressman to leave the seat open for a Dem who would sweep into the position based on President Obama's presumed popularity. Should Owens lose, it would appear another misjudgement by the manchild administration.
Sure - because that makes sense in a district that's been solidly Republican for about a century.
It appears you see no reason to apply a logic-filter to your idle speculation. Back when McHugh was appointed Secretary of the Army, there was absolutely no anticipation by Democrats that this was a likely "pick-up" for them - I'll assume you know how to use Google News in order to check that for yourself.
"Time enough to undo some of the incredible damage done by Bush & Cheney to the country."
I must have missed them.
Would you be good enough to list a bunch of 'em?
If you're insufficiently intelligent and observant to know of, or uderstand the damage done, I doubt providing a list here would do anything more than encourage you to indulge yourself in more attempts to reframe the discussion.
Obviously, more than half of voters last year decided that the Republican party had done enough damage to warrant entrusting the government to the hands of the opposition, despite Obama's lack of experience - either that, or maybe McCain just wasn't "conservative enough", lol
"...Democrats have better than a 60% majority in the house, enough to pretty much ignore most of what the Republicans think or say, which suits me fine..."
Since this is the case, why do you suppose that the Democrats keep whining that they want Republican support?
Why the rhetoric that the Republicans are the party of 'no,' standing in the way of 'reform'?
I thought they had enough votes in Congress to pass anything.
Looks like you're battin' .1000.
Well, if by your score I'm batting .1000 and by my score you're batting a flat zero, then I suppose I'll take that as a win ;-)
Again - it seems interesting, at least, that you're unable to answer your own questions, when the answers are pretty obvious. I'll help you out this once, though, since I'm feeling generous.
The Democrats, as a party, are more tolerant of diverse political views than the Republicans (currently) are. Hence, Lincoln Chaffee and Chuck Hagel being turfed out of their seats, and the exodus of the alleged "RINOs" from the party. Being the bigger tent means that their chances of winning a majority - in this case, very large majorities - is better than the chances of a smaller, narrower party winning control.
The downside, of course, is that Democrats are forced to engage in constant battles just to keep their own members in line - there are "blue dog" democrats, anti-abortion democrats, far-left liberal democrats, and formerly Republican Democrats, like Arlan Specter and Jim Webb. It's tough for them to get a consensus from their own party, and especially tough when some newly elected members are from districts that are nominally "conservative" - and those members want to have a few Republican votes on issues to cover their own asses in the mid-terms.
Plus, historically, large changes to the government (like the health-care reform bill now being pushed through) have lasted longer and done better when they passed with bipartisan support, even if it was only token. So, I think President Obama is hoping that a few Republican votes will both (a) ensure that the legislation isn't simply repealed when the Republicans eventually sort out their party, and win back control of congress in 2014 or 2016, and (b) having a few GOP votes gives him and "blue dog" Democrats some political cover in next year's mid-terms, and in the 2012 election.
It will be harder for Republicans to attack the President in 2012 on heath-care, if he can point to a couple of Republicans who also voted to support it.
Surely you aren't oblivious to all the political machinations at work in what our elected officials are doing? Although I think you clearly give President Obama waaaay too much credit for prescience - he could never have foreseen that the New York district's GOP party bosses would pick a "moderate" Republican, opening the way for a Conservative Party candidate, unless he truly is "the one", lol. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to see you.
I think Dems are going to get their asses handed to them from today forward to 2012. It certainly is as likely an outcome as your log list of "ifs" and glossing over reality. It appears conservatives are showing a resurgence. You are still thinking Dem and Rep. Awake up, there are more conservatives than Republicans and almost as many as there are Democrats. The more Congress doesn't listen, the more people will look for a new answer.